As many of us know, the 1950s and 1960s ushered in an era engrossed in civil rights cases and laws, especially on the federal level.
One of the most notable cases was desegregation, Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) ruling of separate but equal. The desegregation ruling was pivotal to civil rights advocates as well as those opposed to civil rights.
Advocates celebrated the Brown decision then helped to push for the Civil Rights Act (1964) and, a year later, the Voting Rights Act (1965) through demonstrations and legislative activism. There were other historical events that also ushered the momentum for these critical pieces of legislation including President John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963.
While desegregation and civil rights advocates celebrated and worked toward more wins, segregationists began plotting how to either ignore the ruling or demonstrate legal and legislative defiance to the ruling. The umbrella strategy that was created and credited to former president Richard Nixon and Kevin Phillips was the Southern strategy.
The Southern Strategy was an overarching approach to align moderate white voters to segregationists without using the harsh racist language that was no longer politically and socially acceptable. The Southern strategy used “code language” to galvanize white voters, including white Christians, against segregation. Some of the code language included “the silent majority,” “law and order,” “states’ rights” and “family values.”
On the surface, these phrases are agreeable to many of us. Contextually, these phrases have a deep, historical undertone rooted in subjection, racism and division. The context in which these words were used created the perception that if you were against these agreeable terms, you were “otherized” in the United States — aligned with anti-Christian or anti-“traditional American values.”
As a collective plan, the Southern strategy unified a large portion of southern whites, especially rural whites, as well as whites in other areas of the country, who felt their political, social and potential economic power would diminish with the inclusion of Blacks, Latinos, and Asians in education and employment — and later housing.
As part of the strategy, urban areas were politically pinned against suburban or rural areas. Those in power stoked the flames of prejudice and stereotypical undertones creating a larger division between suburban/rural and urban residents — where suburban or rural became code for white and urban became a code word for Black.
Today, the Southern strategy is still present. We see the strategy play out when municipalities refuse public transportation to cities or zoning to reduce multi-family buildings or zoning that reduces grocery stores in higher density areas creating food deserts.
This new strategy is more than a racial one between Black people and white people. This new strategy includes creating division between socio-economic classes, regions and pinning other racial groups against each other to maintain a majority.
Socio-economic class has also become synonymous with race — equating rich or wealthier people with white people and white communities and poor people equated to Black and Latino people and communities. We have allowed our politics and policy to separate us based on socio-economic class and box us into categories as if our wants and desires for ourselves and our children are separate from one another.
Even deeper, the strategy includes separating the socio-economic classes within racial and ethnic groups — creating a greater descent and separation between “natural” allies.
We have also allowed ourselves to be separated by regions: urban, suburbs, rural, metro and sub-rural. As if these areas define the character of our families and communities.
We all want the same: clean water, space for our children to grow and thrive, good schools, affordable living, healthcare and to feel safe. What does it matter the region we live? Why are we allowing ourselves to judge someone else based on their region? Who is this division benefiting?
One of the most pivotal aspects of the original Southern strategy and post-Reconstruction (after the Civil War and during the Jim Crow era) is pinning Black people against rural, poor and middle-class whites. The original strategy was developed to sow division between these groups with similar socio-economic needs, yet the racial differences created the opportunity to divide these groups against each other to the benefit of the higher economic and ruling class.
Today, those in the ruling class are expanding their sphere of influence to divide other racial and ethnic groups. As with post-Reconstruction and the original Southern strategy, those in the ruling class are pinning racial and ethnic groups against each other as a distraction. The distraction is to avoid the groups working together against the ruling class who are creating policies depressing the economic and social mobility of the working class.
The ruling class has shaped our understanding of policy in terms of racial politics: talk to Blacks only about criminal justice issues; the Latino diaspora is only concerned about immigration; either ignore the Asian diaspora or make Blacks and Latinos the enemy of the Asian diaspora especially when it comes to higher education opportunities.
The divisions create an opening for these groups to only focus on these topic areas and blame each other for the depressive economic and social circumstances each community faces.
From a strategy standpoint, getting people distracted is brilliant. It is the same as an illusionist — pay attention to the lights and special effects so you ignore the illusionist’s hands and the “trick.”
We can see the trick, if we ignore the distractions.
The original Southern strategy impacted the way Southern rural whites voted. Many voted against their own economic and social self-interests because the fears and distractions of stereotypical of Black people.
The Southern strategy 2.0 is doing the same as the original — this time adding other racial and ethic groups, regions, and even dividing racial groups from within based on their socio-economic standing. And this Strategy continues to distract groups so much, people continue to vote against their own economic and social self-interests.
The politics of division is distracting us from the policies impacting our schools, affordability, healthcare, environment, and gainful employment.
Why are we falling for the illusion?
If nothing is new under the sun, then perhaps we ought to be looking at what is happening in the shadows. The shadows contain the thoughts and actions of those who want us divided and distracted.
Perhaps we ought to illuminate all the corners.
We have more in common than not. We can only see our sameness when we avoid the distractions created by a small number of the ruling class who want us to turn on each other because they know we are the masses. And, when the masses come together, we can create change.
Will the Southern strategy 2.0 see pushback, especially when the majority of U.S. citizens have the ability to vote. Will we vote to avoid this new Southern strategy? Or, will we remain silent because the lights and special effects are more exciting?
Tammy R. Greer has a PhD in Political Science and teaches public policy.
